You are here

Notes Pinan Yondan / Pyong Ahn Sah dan

I just don't understand why people so interested in the Itosu Pinan kata set, don't train with people that are close to the lineage, and then go from there. (there are active Kobayashi groups in the UK, and have been for several years).

Jim, what makes you think that the Shorin lineage of Chibana is closer to the original? Mabuni and Funakoshi also were direct students of Itosu. By the way what is the original version of the Pinan? My guess is that Itosu changed them several times during his time he taught them. As John pointed out. Motobu learned a different version even under another name. When Itosu introduced the Pinan in 1904 he could have taught it slightly different in each of the following 10 years. So which student is closer to the original the one who learned it in 1905 or the one who learned it in 1912?

Dod wrote:

I think one reason for the opinion is that Shotokan’s Heian Shodan (the first one learned for many people) is on face value is quite simple and kihon like, but the other 4 have many deliberate and considered moves that in my opinion surely must be application centered (and presumably there is no argument over the many moves taken from older katas)

When you take into account that the original order of the first two Pinan was changed by Funakoshi this train of thought is starting to derail. I guess Itosu had his reasons to start with Pinan Shodan (Heian Nidan). So you maybe right about why people start to think this way, but in my eyes it is because of the lack of historical knowledge amongst other things.

When you take into account that the original order of the first two Pinan was changed by Funakoshi this train of thought is starting to derail. I guess Itosu had his reasons to start with Pinan Shodan (Heian Nidan). So you maybe right about why people start to think this way, but in my eyes it is because of the lack of historical knowledge amongst other things.

Regards Holger

I put a short argument for the different rationales between having Pinan Shodan or Pinan Nidan first (according to my onterpretation of the kata) in my new book (which Iain and my uke Chris are the only people to have copies at the moment).

Personally I think the simplicity of Pinan Nidan is deceptive. If you saw a seasoned competitive fighter/instructor like Gary Chamberlain (on this forum) string together his favourite and most effective moves, you'd end up with something very similar. In some respects the Tomari Te homage in the first three Pinan (those sequences of three steps) hide how nifty they are.

We spoke before, no reliable written evidence im afraid, it's an area we have covered many times etc. Re my logic, I do see (and fully admire) your reasoned approach, I just don't understand why people so interested in the Itosu Pinan kata set, don't train with people that are close to the lineage, and then go from there. (there are active Kobayashi groups in the UK, and have been for several years).But then again, I think I do- function over traditon comes to mind. it's a solid positon to take.

Hi Jim

I'm with Holger on this. I don't see one tradition as having any greater validity than another.

But in line with what you are saying, I have attended a short Pinan bunkai class with you back in 2008 (which I watched as I had my 5th metacarpal pinned and plastered at the time), I have trained and chatted for a day as part of a group of 5 with Roger Sheldon, and Mike Flannagan and I have regularly swapped ideas online through forums and videos for the last decade and we meet up about every two years. I also have access to a lot of interesting material on youtube.

Taking an objective view however, as Iain and I have both said here in the past, if we found a genuine copy of Matsumura or Itosu's bunkai that had been hidden somewhere unrecognised for a century, and it turned out that we did not feel it was as effective or useful as what we are teaching now, while we would value that book and refer to its contents, we'd teach what we felt was more effective.

We get where we are by standing on the shoulders of giants. We don't have to go down and back to walk in their footsteps: like them we should move onwards and upwards and hope that one day greater martial artists than us will help people in ways we cannot yet imagine by standing on our shoulders in turn.

Hi Holger, yes I’m aware of the order change by Funikoshi, but my point is just that for Heian Shodan it would be easier to argue it is more for “training” than useful bunkai because I think its bunkai is more generic and principle based, but I don’t see how the same could be said for the other 4 Heians/ Pinans where I think more specific applications are quite apparent

I understand and totally agree with that the Heian Shodan looks rather basic and might trick somebody into thinking it is not the real deal. But in my eyes that argumentation is obsolete when you take into account that the order was different back then and that this order was intentionally chosen by Itosu. In my opinion every Kata should be taught principle based and rather generic and if you look at the specific applications of a certain Kata you can pinpoint the principles they are resting on and can work out generic drills were you can refine your skills (making an oak tree out of an acorn so to speak).

If you saw a seasoned competitive fighter/instructor like Gary Chamberlain (on this forum) string together his favourite and most effective moves, you'd end up with something very similar.

That's kind of you to say John. I saw a lot of value in explosive combinations and varying angles of attack. As you say, if you put a few together it would be very kata like. The Enshin kata I now teach are of that ilk, done in fighting stance rather than the more traditional ones.

I'm impressed by people that make anything work effectively. Any road that leads there can be the right one.

I'm impressed by people that make anything work effectively. Any road that leads there can be the right one.

Same here and absolutely! Years ago Gavin Mulholland made a great post on the old forum. To paraphrase, he said that styles are not primarily what we do (because ultimately what works, works), but how we train that material. The individual will chose their path – and have to accept all strengths, weaknesses, efficiencies, and inefficiencies that are a result of that choice – but ultimately, whatever route we take, we are all trying to get to the same place … and it’s important to enjoy the scenery along the way ;-)

If you saw a seasoned competitive fighter/instructor like Gary Chamberlain (on this forum) string together his favourite and most effective moves, you'd end up with something very similar.

That's kind of you to say John. I saw a lot of value in explosive combinations and varying angles of attack. As you say, if you put a few together it would be very kata like. The Enshin kata I now teach are of that ilk, done in fighting stance rather than the more traditional ones.

I'm impressed by people that make anything work effectively. Any road that leads there can be the right one.

Gary

And Ashihara Kata too!!!!

This is my point about the Pinan/Heians.

No disrespect to Gary, Gary knows personally I have much respect for him and look forward each time to the seminars in Loughborough.etc.

Because Gary is a seasoned Fighter with quite a few Champions from his camp the opinion which is not too disimilar to mine is accepted due to knowledge of his expereince etc. BUT because I'm not a known entity my points of view are unfounded etc.

Dare I say a little bit of double standards

Ashihara AND Enshin Karate are from the same source, just different concepts, The Kata, Stances and more or less everything else in the styles is from the same stable. I've not coasted through life without any issues in my life. I'm ex forces been involved in live fire situations, seen friends killed in action, but because I'm not in the same light as others here, my points of view and statements have been readily dismissed,

The Enshin kata I now teach are of that ilk, done in fighting stance rather than the more traditional ones.

I'm impressed by people that make anything work effectively. Any road that leads there can be the right one.

Gary

And Ashihara Kata too!!!!

This is my point about the Pinan/Heians.

No disrespect to Gary, Gary knows personally I have much respect for him and look forward each time to the seminars in Loughborough.etc.

Because Gary is a seasoned Fighter with quite a few Champions from his camp the opinion which is not too disimilar to mine is accepted due to knowledge of his expereince etc. BUT because I'm not a known entity my points of view are unfounded etc.

Dare I say a little bit of double standards

Ashihara AND Enshin Karate are from the same source, just different concepts, The Kata, Stances and more or less everything else in the styles is from the same stable. I've not coasted through life without any issues in my life. I'm ex forces been involved in live fire situations, seen friends killed in action, but because I'm not in the same light as others here, my points of view and statements have been readily dismissed,

[/quote]

Hi

I've heard you say this before vis a vis your opinions and it has puzzled me. I'm not aware of dismissing your points of view on the value of those (Enshin and Ashihara) forms and can't recall seeing other people do so. Where we disagree is on the value of the Pinan vis a vis other kata. :)

Form follows function. To me the Pinan/Heian and indeed any other 'old' kata follow the function. They are useless combatively if you try to apply them for a different function or a different context. As a result I can see why some systems have sensibly ditched them - they are either not working/training for that context or have not learned to apply them for that context, therefore they are useless for them and it makes no sense to train them. In those instances it has made perfect sense for them to create their own drills to dea with the context for which they are training, whcih, when strung together and practiced solo, are kata. That's what Enshin and Ashihara have done, and that's what I have done (after a little arm twisting and related to certain students' circumstances) with DART.

Personally I don't rate the Enshin or Ashihara forms so highly as forms like the Pinan for the context of self defence, because I feel that the latter were designed for that whereas the former were designed for hard contact competitive fighting matches, which is a different combative dynamic, but I rate them higher for training in full contact competitive fighting than the Pinan, and if I wanted some solo and paired stand up drills to prepare me for that arena they would be my more likely port of call.

However, given that it would probably fair to say that a fair proportion of the karateka who use the 'old forms' (due to their regular training paradigms) wouldn't know how to apply them effectively if their lives depended upon it, and would probably fall back on whatever kumite knowledge they have (however inappropriate for the context), whereas most Enshin and Ashihara karateka know how to apply their forms, in many ways I rate the effectiveness and 'fit for purposefulness' of the Enshin and Ashihara forms higher.

Terminology comes into this as well. I've always been puzzled at the idea that my 'sport' skills were inappropriate or unusable for 'self-defence' as in my younger-and-not-proud-of-them days I had a fair amount of street experience from brawls in pubs to doorwork to attempted muggings and always managed to make the best of things. (Note: I mean self-defence as in response to aggression, not a mutual desire to fight) I am older and wiser now and take far more sensible measures (not drinking, standing a door or going to cashpoints in the early hours to name but three)

I often see things in the paper about ex boxers or the like that managed to give a young kid a nasty shock when taken as a soft target. I hope despite being in my late 50's I still have enough impact to put someone off, even if it's resorting to the primitive knees in the face that I scored with many times in tournaments. Both sports; but both requiring the ability to deliver damage.

The more of those they are familiar with, or work on a regular basis, the easier they will find it (and the more appropriate it will be) to access their skill set.

Looking at it from this perspective a Boxer, Judoka, Thai Boxer or Enshin practitioner, although sport orientated, should do better than a no contact self defence person, or a 'pure' Shotokan or TKD practitioner, as they tick more of those boxes in their regular training.

For me the Pinans are Itosu Sensei's regimentation of one Kata, Channan Kata and done like this (see video) actually make more sense to me than the Pinan/Heian Kata series which always gets a lot of attention

Hanshi Roger Sheldon is the guy in the video and he has added a detailed synopsis which I will let you read as opposed to copying and pasting it (thus possibly being Plageristic)

Because Gary is a seasoned Fighter with quite a few Champions from his camp the opinion which is not too dissimilar to mine is accepted due to knowledge of his experience etc. BUT because I'm not a known entity my points of view are unfounded etc.

Dare I say a little bit of double standards …

… I'm ex forces been involved in live fire situations, seen friends killed in action, but because I'm not in the same light as others here, my points of view and statements have been readily dismissed.

I’m looking back across the posts and I’m not seeing that. It is however a concern that you feel that way as this forum should have no “hierarchy” with everyone free to express their own ideas, challenge the ideas of others, and have their ideas challenged.

I’m not seeing double standards based on the person who made a given statement; what I am seeing are differences in the nature of the statements made. I think I’ve mentioned this difference in my last few posts, but I’ll repeat again with a view to maybe reassuring you that you are being treated fairly.

There have two kinds of statements made in this thread; Subjective and Objective.

A subjective statement is essentially a person’s own view or own experience.

An objective statement is one that is based on hard facts.

Saying you don’t wish to make use of a given series of kata – or even any kata – based on personal preference or experience is a subjective statement. Whilst others may have their own contrary viewpoint, the validly of subjective positions is entirely down to the holder of that position.

If you read the discussion between Gary and I in this thread, I hope you can see were are simply putting forward our personal viewpoints. We disagree on some things, and we agree on other things. We are discussing things subjectively and the discussion reflects that.

In your case, you have made several strong objective statements around the Pinan series being inferior, training kata, not real kata, comfort blankets, etc. You have presented this as an objective statement of fact.

An objective statement requires proof because it put forward as having a universal truth outside of personal experience. It’s therefore not unreasonable for people to ask for sources / proof in order to accept or reject that objective statement.

As I’ve said in my last few posts, saying the Pinan kata are not for you (along the lines Gary has) would not be challenged. Nor would proof be asked for because it is a subjective statement. What you said was quite different.

You made the objective statement that Pinans are training kata, not real kata, comfort blankets, etc. And if they were true, then no one should practise the Pinans because they are inferior to other kata … and anyone who does practise them is doing it wrong. I hope you can see the difference?

Gary talked about his own experience, his own views and why he teaches and trains the way he does. I did the same in my replies to Gary (as did John). You inferred that any one who makes used of the Pinan kata (including myself, John, Holger, Jason, etc) is making a mistake because the Pinan kata are flawed… so we naturally challenge why you think we are making a mistake, and ask for your sources to prove the Pinans are fundamentally flawed.

Gary’s statements don’t demand proof; not because of who he is, but because of the nature of the statements made. Your statements do demand proof; not because of who you are, but because of the nature of the statements made.

In short, Gary said why he prefers to do things differently; you told us we were wrong ... and we don’t think we are wrong.

Not double standards, but two very different types of statements and conversations. If you had stuck to saying you choose not to include the Pinans because you find other kata do the job better, then that would be a subjective discussion and more inline with the other exchanges.

I hope that helps clear things up?

Apologies if I have not made this distinction clear, and if it has left you feeling like it was a personal issue as opposed to the nature of the statement made.

In the last post I essentially said the same as I have here:

Iain Abernethy wrote:

To reiterate what I’ve said in my last few posts, I’m not saying you are wrong for not wishing to practise the Pinan kata. That’s totally your call. What I am questioning is the objective validity for the assertions you have made.

In short, are they based on anything other than personal opinion?

If not, then it would perhaps be better if they were expressed as personal opinion as opposed to statements of objective fact?

Regardless, I’ve obviously not communicated this key difference effective and I hope this post addresses that?

For me the Pinans are Itosu Sensei's regimentation of one Kata, Channan Kata and done like this (see video) actually make more sense to me than the Pinan/Heian Kata series which always gets a lot of attention

Hanshi Roger Sheldon is the guy in the video and he has added a detailed synopsis which I will let you read as opposed to copying and pasting it (thus possibly being Plageristic)

I understand where Roger is coming from (and as someone who's trained with him I know that his application is not as gentle as that form), but I don't think there is enough evidence to believe in an original 'Channan' kata, rather I believe that the form was created as a segmented teaching and training tool and later renamed Pinan. It is important to note that this kata is Roger's kata, not an 'original' source.

I've also performed the Pinan kata as one single form and shortened it by cutting the Tomari Te sequences, but it's not my prefered method of practise. I prefer to visualise something and then kata my way through my response.

For me the Pinans are Itosu Sensei's regimentation of one Kata, Channan Kata and done like this (see video) actually make more sense to me than the Pinan/Heian Kata series which always gets a lot of attention ... Hanshi Roger Sheldon is the guy in the video and he has added a detailed synopsis which I will let you read as opposed to copying and pasting it (thus possibly being Plageristic)

In the synopsis this gent is clear that these are his own creations and nothing historic:

“Whatever we say or think, everything about the Channan kata is conjecture and therefore it may be a largely pointless practise reflecting upon its nature... like a headless chicken running around getting nowhere, like looking for the end of the rainbow or the Holy Grail -- the original Channan just ain't there. I called my conjoined Pinan forms 'Channan' (against advice that it would mislead) merely to reflect the oft claimed belief that originally the first two Pinans were once kata called Channan not to suggest I had the originals because I don't.”

In line with my previous post, this is fine and your statement that you’d prefer to do things differently is also fine. Subjective opinion and personal practise are one thing; statements of historic fact are another.

John, I hope that is not to offtopic, but can I ask you what you consider to be Tomari Te sequences and why you consider them as such? Thanks.

Regards Holger

HI Holger

Sorry, that was a bit of a throw away remark. It's something I draw attention to in my new book. Linear repetitive sequences of three techniques in succession remind me of Jion, Jiin, Jitte and `Empi - all Tomari Te kata (as do the techniques which are tripled in the Pinan/Heian).

I understand and totally agree with that the Heian Shodan looks rather basic and might trick somebody into thinking it is not the real deal. But in my eyes that argumentation is obsolete when you take into account that the order was different back then and that this order was intentionally chosen by Itosu. In my opinion every Kata should be taught principle based and rather generic and if you look at the specific applications of a certain Kata you can pinpoint the principles they are resting on and can work out generic drills were you can refine your skills (making an oak tree out of an acorn so to speak).

sounds like a long shot to me at first glance . Allthough I can see that for Heian Sandan in comparison with Jion, Jiin and Jitte.

I guess I'll have to wait for your book to be made public.

Regards Holger

The Heian Sandan one is less blatant to me than the Shodan and Nidan one. The three thrusts in front stance duplicating the three thrusts in kiba dachi, the three Age Uke, the three fumikomi etc... there aren't all that many kata that have triple forward sequences and it is interesting how common they are in the Tomari te forms. I'm not saying the Heian/Pinan are from Tomari te, I'm suggesting that these sequences may have been inspired by those forms as well as others. In some of the Pinan I see greater comonality with Tomari te forms than I do with Kushanku.

I'm not saying the Heian/Pinan are from Tomari te, I'm suggesting that these sequences may have been inspired by those forms as well as others. In some of the Pinan I see greater comonality with Tomari te forms than I do with Kushanku.

I absolutely agree with that. Given that Itosus main teacher was a certain Gusukuma of Tomari, Funakoshi even states that Itosu inherited the Gusukuma line, it makes absolutely sense in my eyes. That was the reason I was asking, because I had similar thoughts but I couln't pin them down exactly. So thanks for the clarification. Looking forward to your book.

"sure ... actually right now I am working on a book that explains some of the main reasons why you are right. the fact is that one can suppose as much as you want but there are many historical facts [beyond martial arts history] that set the stage for explaining what really did happen and why [and which show why some claims are just not credible] so here are some of the points that we know are right

However after the meji restoration (1868-1890) the samurai - who had already lost their positions of power - at least officially - quickly lost favorability with the general populous as the people and the government turned their interest to the west. Also after the Japanese took control of the the island of Okinawa in 1879 - Itosu who was a low ranked Samurai in the civil service - ( note that the civil servants and all the powerful positions holders were okinawan samurai class) --- was essentially kicked out of a position of power - as were all the civil servants in Okinawa - replaced by japanese appointees. At the time Itosu was the age of 48 he literally had no other (known) occupation than to try and earn a living by teaching martial arts. Not only was he now out of favor he was in fact person non-grata as were all the former powerful positions as the Japanese tried to reformulate okinawan culture into japanese culture and tried to actually eradicate Okinawan culture as that happened ALL martial arts instructors quickly lost the ability to make a living teaching martial arts in a short period of time ... NONE of the major instructors that had at one time held positions of power could make money teaching the combat oriented physically rough arts ... it was not just Itosu that had problems ... all the schools had problems keeping their doors open.

In fact it was not until Kano changed Jujutsu to Judo in 1882 (reflecting then public ideals) that the art again became popular

Therefore instructors who wished to keep their doors open HAD to change their curriculum to something that they could sell ... and what was selling was to a literally a softer and gentler version of the martial arts ...

Itosu - who had once been a well positioned civil servant - who Knew how to read and write - took the lead in developing an art with very little physical contact [in fact there was NO sparring until 1934] ... and in fact quickly expanded his successful school

Itosu was in fact very successful training a a great number of people that were eventually to become masters of many styles by combining what they learned from Itosu and the remnants of the older styles. [As part of his system Itosu was to train many names that were to be known in the history of modern karate including: Choki Motobu, Kentsu Yabu, Chomo Hanashiro, Gichin Funakoshi, Moden Yabiku, Kanken Toyama[who developed the foundation for the Shudokan karate], Shinpan Gusukuma (Shiroma), Anbun Tokuda, Kenwa Mabuni [who developed the style of Shito-ryu], Ch?shin Chibana [who created Shorin – Ryu karate], Chojun Miyagi [founder of Goju Ryu] ]

Also by making the changes he did Itosu avoided problems with the Japanese who had been actively trying to eradicate the old (pre 1979) Okinawan culture.

Itosu also wisely realized that average person of the new okinawan culture did not want the same old katas and techniques of several physical violence that had been the past trademark of the samurai ... but instead they wanted newer ideas - "kinder and gentler" ways that could be practiced part time rather than as professional fighters or warriors.

Thus he changed the katas that he had earlier learned ... even adding a third Niahanchi kata (sandan - which did not taught by Matusmara but surely would have been if it had existed when he was teaching] and creating the Pinan katas.

As a side note it is interesting to note that the kata Seisan is missing from Itosu repertoire. It was a kata taught by Matsumura. If in fact Itosu's primary karate teacher had been Matsumura, surely he would have included a version of this kata in his repertoire. But Itosu did not teach it.

Itosu also eliminated sparring. Sparring meant prolonged physical contact and testing techniques in ways that resembled the old style of martial arts. [Where techniques had to be part of a hands-on series of techniques that resulted in domination of one student over another and possible damage.] Instead single techniques could be practiced that could be shown to have an effect without resulting in hurting the opponent.

Itosu's curriculum was a brilliant strategy. People liked the exercise they got and the defensive techniques that were not focused on life or death intensity. Students seemed to also like the practice of kata without the demands of hands on fighting. Something that separated Itosu’s schools from Judo, which still required physical hands on applications in most cases

It should be noted that the re-introduction of sparring into competitions that was by then a full SPORT did not occur until 1934. In fact this new karate - physical exercise without damaging the opponent was adopted by the army as a training to develop their physical skills. it is important to note that the new japanese army was modeled after european/ Prussian armies with the firearm being the focus of killing techniques they had no real need for advanced hand to hand skill but had significant need for physical training as the population had become less physically fit due to changes in culture

----------------

I hope that helps but feel free to ask questions or fill in holes that I have left out

Thanks for that; a very useful post. It’s also very good of the author to do that as it must have taken him a while.

In regards to the topic of this thread though, there is nothing in there which points to a historically verifiable source which states that the Pinan kata are created for school kids, or that the Pinan kata lack something.

The evidence we do have states that the Pinan kata were around (in various stages of development) long before Itosu started teaching in schools (the interview with Motobu, etc). We also know that he taught the kata to his adult student; before and after karate’s introduction to schools. We also know that the Pinan kata were regarded as a holistic self-protection system (from Funakoshi’s writing about them). So the evidence we do have states that the Pinan series are every bit as potent as other kata.

There is nothing in the above post that gives evidence for the Pinans being inherently inferior to other kata. What is being discussed above is a shift in approach that saw ALL kata approach differently. That shift in approach saw Naihanchi, Passai, Kushanku, Chinto, etc all taught for their own sake; not just the Pinans.

The author does state that “Thus he changed the katas that he had earlier learned ... and creating the Pinan katas.” But he does not cite a source. So again, there is nothing that can be used to support what has been said previously. Without a source being cited, it remains personal opinion with nothing to back it up.

Both Motobu and Mabuni make reference to learning the Pinan kata from Itosu (including earlier versions of them) long before the introduction of karate to schools. So we do know from the evidence available that the Pinans were not created at that time suggested in the above post: How could they have learnt something not yet created? They could not, so we know the kata were created before then. Hence we know they were not created specifically for the instruction of children or to match the fashions of that time.

We also know from Funakoshi – another student of Itosu – that the kata are a holistic self-protection system: “Having mastered these five forms, one can be confident that he is able to defend himself competently in most situations.” That makes clear that these kata do have a functional use and were not created for non-functional purposes.

There is therefore evidence to say that the Pinans were NOT created for the purposes suggested, and there is no evidence to say they were (or at least nothing has been put forward to date).

You’re obviously quite committed to the view that the Pinan are inferior kata. I would however suggest, as I have in previous posts, that your opinion is not one that has historical validity i.e. it is a personal subjective view, as opposed to a verifiable objective one.

Based on the evidence we do have – and in the absence of anything to the contrary being but forth – I am confident that the Pinan were created to have a combative function. My own study of the Pinan series has certainly borne that out. Everything I know about the Pinan kata leads to me agreeing with Funakoshi when he said, “Having mastered these five forms, one can be confident that he is able to defend himself competently in most situations.”

I therefore could conclude this discussion by once again reiterating that I do not feel you are wrong for choosing to not practise the Pinan series. I do however feel you are wrong to tell me I’m wrong ;-) There is nothing to support the claims you are making; whereas I do have evidence to support my position.

The Pinan kata are a very functional set of kata; and the historical evidence, and my own experience, support that viewpoint.

Without some verifiable source from you to move the discussion forward, we are likely to go round and round in circles. I therefore suggest it is agree to disagree time.

After all, the bottom like is we are both happy with what we are doing, we’ve explored the issue about as far as we can in this thread, and we’ve provided posts for people to read through so they can make up their own minds.

"sure ... actually right now I am working on a book that explains some of the main reasons why you are right. the fact is that one can suppose as much as you want but there are many historical facts [beyond martial arts history] that set the stage for explaining what really did happen and why [and which show why some claims are just not credible] so here are some of the points that we know are right ... [Snip]

Thanks for sharing this.

None of this changes my opinion. To me Bruce looks as if he is getting confused. He's presenting waffle rather than looking at things logically with reference to the accounts of Itosu or his students or what we can visibly see in the different versions of the kata that survive.

He doesn't provide any solid evidence (here) that links the creation of the Pinan with a softer or gentler form of MA practice, nor that they were created specifically for the school curriculum. There's no evidence presented here that the method of karate taught in the dojos (not the Okinawan schools) which also included the Pinan (and had done prior to the introduction of karate into schools) was watered down in any way shape or form, or even if it did that that would necessarily make the kata themselves 'nicer' since the effectiveness of a kata lies in the applcations applied, the solo form is harmless if only practiced as such. If Itosu changed kata to make them kind and gentle, why are they so similar to the 'non kind and gentle' forms, and why are they blatently not kind and gentle to anyone who has a clue about application. Were all the non Shuri te karate lineages also watered down at the same time? Bruce makes reference to no 'sparring' - but is he including tegumi in this? Is he referring to all Okinawan karate, Okinawan school karate, karate in Japan?

Bruce's account (above) does not tally with the surviving accounts of karate practise by Itosu's students, and doesn't tally with documents like the Okinawan Bubishi. He's talking about what he thinks was the school curriculum rather than what Itosu taught in his own house to students like Funakoshi and Mabuni and Motobu etc... and he's not (here) presenting any evidence to back up his claims.

While I understand there are heavily researched opinions here and hours invested in perfecting skills, surely all that matters is that we each of us enjoy our training and get out of it what we can.

Does it matter if opinions differ? We need to enjoy what we do and have faith in it. Even if the Pinans did - at one time - have their teeth removed, if they are currently back online and being taught effectively that's a win all round.

I never missed karate politics and arguing about who did what, when and how hard just makes even less sense to me.

Just to add, I don't think the Pinan kata are inferior, just a stepping stone to the senior kata

Yes I would agree we have exhausted most of the discussion on these kata and will accept that opinions of kata are what makes Karate and this Forum so vast and interesting. May I say that I've found this thread one of my "most challenging" threads I've had in the many many years I've been a member of this Forum and the previous Forum for Iain's works etc.

I suppose I must accept that Karateka will look more to the Pinan series in applicaton and training than they will to the other kata that are there in each of their relevant syllabi.

Does it matter if opinions differ? We need to enjoy what we do and have faith in it.

Not at all and I fully agree. Opinions always come from somewhere of course and I think it’s healthy to discuss their origins. It’s good to be exposed to different thinking as well as having our own views challenged. Through such discussions we may have our options changed or validated. Either way, that’s a good thing. It also prevents cult-like “group think”. Disagreement is good and I frequently start my seminars by quoting General MacArthur:

“If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.”

Black Tiger wrote:

Yes I would agree we have exhausted most of the discussion on these kata and will accept that opinions of kata are what makes karate and this forum so vast and interesting.

Absolutely. It would be a boring old world in which nothing would ever change if everyone thought the same. Thanks for making this a good one Ken. Lots of things for visitors to read through and ponder over in this thread.

JWT wrote:

Cross posted with Iain - thanks for the post Iain!

You’re welcome. I guess it’s better that we both say the same thing than it not get said. I should have called you to ensure we weren’t duplicating work before I started :-)

Excellent thread... and some interesting bunkai. A large amount of my training, in regards to kata, has been focused more on form than function (with the idea being, similar to an earlier post, that an understanding on the form will reveal the function). Now, whilst I stand by the training I've received and those who bestowed it, I'd be lying if other training I've tinkred with over the years hadn't resulted in a few nagging questions formulating in the back of my head with regards to our kata and what bunkai we do or don't have.

To that end, I'd say the Heian katas are supremely valuable from the perspective of bunkai. By this I mean even if we disagree on whether they have merits for training physically (I can see where people are coming saying 'if have time to train with Heian kata then train Kanku Dai instead', though I don't agree), I think they're an excellent way of introducing students to the idea of bunkai itself.

It's much more palletable for a kyu grade student to learn Heian Shodan's form and then start thinking about what the movements mean, how they could (or couldn't) be applied etc than it would be to learn Kanku Dai, or perhaps Tekki Shodan, and then delve into their respective bunkai (mainly because they haven't been exposed to the relevant kihon techniques by this point, but that's more a opint of individual club syllabus I suppose). As they progress through the Heian katas they'll grow more accustomed to 'wearing their bunkai hats' and be more capable of applying these trains of thought to the more advanced kata more effectively.